dollars not yet expended in the recovery act, that they should be redirected for new spending such as this. mr. speaker, 18 months ago the administration told the american people that their trillion dollar stimulus plan would create millions of jobs and keep unemployment below 8%. instead two million jobs more have been lost, unemployment surged to nearly 10%. overall 47 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the democrats' february, 2009, stimulus bill including my home state of louisiana. instead of supporting this economy and getting americans back to work, jobs have been lost. our debt continues to spiral out of control. and the only solution we have here without an ability to amend, without an ability to offer some alternative approach is to add another $34 billion in new spending without offsetting it. new spending is unnecessary and

republicans have been calling for this wasted stimulus money to be put to better use by supporting the long-term unemployed. i suggest the best way to create jobs is to stop destroying good-paying jobs that already exist. let me explain what i mean by that. this is a single most important issue in my home state of louisiana, the people of louisiana are facing job loss. in addition to a failed economic policy, a failed stimulus, president obama's ill-conceived and unwarranted and in the words of a federal judge, arbitrary and capricious ban on offshoring drilling is galvanizing residents along the gulf coast like i have never seen before. the long-term implications of this, mr. speaker, are real. real leaves are affected by this. because of this policy, thousands, tens of thousands of good paying jobs along the gulf coast are immediately at risk. it doesn't have to be this way.

unfortunately, the elites in this administration and the president himself refuse to understand this. six weeks ago the louisiana delegation, entire delegation, democrats and republicans, house and senate, requested a meeting with the president in writing. and we have not even gotten a response back. frankly, mr. speaker, that's just unacceptable and irresponsible. already three gulf rigs have left american waters heading to other ports of the world and the trend is going to continue at an accelerated rate. once a rig is gone it could be years before it returns, if it ever returns at all. each one of these deepwater riggs -- deep-water riggs employs 1,400 works, and multiply that by six and those are the immediate support workers. these are jobs that are being lost. and smaller companies that cannot afford to move are simply losing their workers. people are losing their jobs.

costing thousands of jobs. i met recently with about 35 companies. these are all small companies affected by this. there was a african-american couple, and he got started doing janitorial work. and he worked very hard for years to do this. saved his money and started a small business, oil service company, he was so proud of. the american dream, by god. he started this company and grew it to 20 workers. and he had accelerating work until this ban on drilling. and now he has no work and he's seeing his life's savings go down the drain. why? because of an ill-founded government imposed moratorium that makes no sense. these workers, these are rig workers and energy engineers, they are plumbers, electricians, dock workers, they work in the maritime industry. and yet this is the kind of

policy we are getting. this ban hurts everybody. we stand united on the gulf coast to support good-paying jobs. this stimulus has failed and it's time to direct these funds into more beneficial areas to help those who are chronically unemployed. the last time this house acted, mr. camp, the ranking member of our ways and means committee, offered a motion to extnd these benefits -- extend these benefits while paying for the spending while using unspent funds for the fail stimulus bill. the house could immediately act on that same type of provision today with the senate following suit to get these benefits to the long-term unemployed in a way that helps the economy, job creation, instead of hampering job creation even more. that is what we should be doing and what would most help the unemployed get benefits they need today and the jobs that they need tomorrow. the american people want president obama and this congress to spur entrepreneurship and american

competitiveness and create good-paying jobs. instead, the president and this congress continue on a path of an increasing uncertainty, leading to high unemployment and run away spending. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my very distinct pleasure and privilege to yield one minute to the most distinguished speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. the speaker: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. indeed there is some good news in it, but there is some not so good news in it as well. i listened very attentively to the previous speaker talk about why these employment benefits had to be paid for, and i was struck by the inconsistency in his remarks and that of the republicans in the united states senate and in the house of

representatives. it's important to note that while they demand that these benefits be paid for, $34 billion, in unemployment benefits going to those who have played by the rules, worked hard, who are unemployed, through no fault of their own, $34 billion which injected into the economy will indeed create jobs. while they have said that $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest people in america shouldn't be paid for. inconsistent is the politest word i can use to describe that. $34 billion for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. last week the economic policy institute released a report making it clear that not only do unemployment benefits protect those who are have lost their jobs through no fault of their own but would lead to more jobs,

higher wages, and a stronger economy for all americans. and why is that so? that is so because these benefits are given to people who need them. the money will be spent immediately on necessity. injecting demand into the economy. creating jobs, in fact the american policy institute figured that would be 1.4 million jobs relating to the unemployment benefits out there now. the congressional budget office, which is independent and nonpartisan, has confirmed that extending unemployment benefits is the most efficient way for the government to generate economic growth. now, i know why the gentleman may want to change the subject to other things. he mentions katrina. we all supported katrina. anybody talk about paying for that emergency? no. it was an emergency. we have a compact with the american people in time of a

natural disaster even though that disaster was exacerbated by cronyism in the bush administration. but let's not go there. let's just stay on this subject. and the subject at hand is when this bill was introduced today, this resolution, i'm sure you-all heard it was an amendment to an amendment. the senate amendment that we are voting on was an amendment that they put in took out the jobs initiative. and those initiatives were paid for. build america bonds. that was part of the original bill. to build the infrastructure of america as highways and infrastructure. a new, green way. creating new green jobs and new green technology. and to build america jobs that went beyond those investments. to stabilize our state economies. 30 states have written their

budgets already on the basis of this funding being in the legislation. and paid for. not increasing the deficit. we passed it in december. the senate only now is sending it back to us because the republicans have objected to that and the amendment to the amendment eliminates that stability for states. summer jobs, it's too late. so youth jobs. in december we passed for summer jobs for america's youth. the amendment to the amendment takes out those. they were paid for. because on the one hand they said everything has to be paid for. are they just plain opposed to jobs for summer jobs for youth? are they opposed to build america bonds to grow our economy and meet the needs of our country infrastructurewise? the housing trust fund, very, very important initiative. concurrent receipt.

i don't think there's any doubt that every person in this congress sports our veterans. one issue that is a high priority for america's veterans when we meet with them on a regular basis is the issue of concurrent receipt. you may not be familiar with that term, it's a disability tax on our veterans. with so many veterans returning home with disabilities from iraq and afghanistan, this is very, very important. it's in the bill. and was paid for. again, money given to people who need it for necessity to expend it, inject demand into economy and create jobs. so the amendment to the amendment that the senate republicans finally would let pass in the senate removed concurrent receipt paid for our veterans. the list goes on and on. a list of paid for initiatives, that benefit our veterans, grow

our economy, create jobs, help our workers, help our young people, stabilize our states, all paid for. the republican senators said no. . and they held up this particular amendment to the amendment for over six weeks because they said it had been paid for at the same time as they were saying, we must pay for those $34 billion for benefits, for the unemployment, but we don't have to pay for the $700 billion for the wealthiest people in america to have tax cuts. those same tax cuts during the eight years of the bush administration did not create jobs, they increased the deficit and the republicans have said they want to go back to the exact agenda of the bush administration. they look with increased fondness on the bush agenda. and the bush administration.

well, let me say this here today, the good news about this is, finally our unemployed will get their benefits. it will be retroactive. it's really sad that it has to come to this. an unpaid for tax cuts for the rich, paid for benefits for our workers. but it's important to note, contrary to what you might hear from some in this chamber that in the first eight months --, that in the first eight months of the obama administration more jobs were created, by the time we finish august, more jobs will have been created than in the eight years of the bush administration. while they increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, while they -- we lost jobs, where they took us to a brink of financial

crisis of our financial industry, where they took us deep into recession, where they took us deep into deficit they want to return to the exact same -- deficit, they want to return to the exact same agenda. we are not going back and our step forward into the future is one step into the future, it's being taken today. but we say to american workers, you have played by the rules, you have worked hard, you have lost your job through no fault of your own, you will have these benefits. but we must do more to create jobs, to create more jobs. and i urge our colleagues today to understand how important this is, the distinction between those who support our workers, respect the contracts that we have with them about when the economy ebbs and flows and the

cycle of employment and unemployment is not in their favor, that we will be there for them. and being there for them is not just about them. it's also about the entire economy, the entire economy. the economy cannot flourish and be entrepreneurial unless it knows that there's a safety net in case the economy comes down. the republicans are saying no to that. they've said no over and over and over again and they're saying no today unless it is paid for again while they still say we want tax cuts for the wealthiest, $700 billion worth, 20 times more than this bill for unemployment insurance. but don't forget what they took out of the bill. and don't forget that that includes concurrent receipts for our veterans. i urge our colleagues to proudly

vote for this legislation. i commend my colleague mr. levin for his hard work on this and other legislation and i know, because it's absolutely essential, that at some point we will get a jobs bill that will come back from the senate, we agree that it should be paid for, we've sent it over to them paid for and that they will recognize that we need to create jobs, good-paying jobs that take us into the future and most of all that we're not going back to the failed economic policies of the bush administration. i urge a strong aye vote on both sides of the aisle. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan reserves his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, this is the eighth time this unemployment benefit insurance is extended. i think that in and of itself speaks to the failure of the economic policies. secondly, a massive tax increase

in the the face of economic uncertainty is only going to hurt economic growth and job creation. on our side of the aisle we're work to -- we'll work to find the offset to dealing with -- to avoiding these tax increases on the american people. and finally i want to point out that private sector growth in the year 2010, the rate of private sector growth has been slower than what we saw in the great depression. so with that i'm pleased now to yield four minutes to the gentleman from georgia, the ranking member of one of the subkest of ways and means, mr. linder. mr. linder: mr. speaker, we are here today to consider legislation paying another $34 billion in unemployment benefits. the other side says that these unemployment benefits stretching to almost two years are needed and must be added to the $13 trillion debt. even as they claim their trillion-dollar stimulus plan

has been a success at creating millions of jobs. it makes you wonder if they're looking at the same jobs data as the rest of us. 18 months ago this administration said the stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs. it hasn't. through june of 2010 the united states lost 2.6 million more private sector jobs, leading millions of americans to ask, where are the jobs? the administration also promised that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. it hasn't. instead, unemployment reached 130rs and remains stuck near that level today -- 10% and remains stuck near that level today and thatting norse millions of miss -- that ignores millions of unemployed missing out of the statistics. the administration also said that the stimulus would create mostly private sector jobs. it didn't. managing all that spending helped government jobs grow by

201,000 since the stimulus was passed which has made washington, d.c., the nation's strongest job market. meanwhile in the rest of the country 47 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the democrats' february, 2009, stimulus. while the job situation seems to have finally stopped getting worse, things are not getting much better. the trickle of private sector job creation in 2010 is so anemic that at the current rate it would take until 2017 to recover the jobs lost during the recession. that's longer than it took to recover the jobs lost during the depression of the 1930's. another estimate finds it will take until 2021 to get unemployment back to prerecession levels. who knew that the administration's recovery summer

would last a decade or more? the fact is, the only thing the democrats' stimulus has succeeded in creating is an enormous mountain of debt, which is already hurting job creation. the bill before us will only make that worse. unemployed workers want real jobs with real companies in a real economy, not two years of unemployment benefits. and all this congress offers is more debt and ultimately more pink slips. that's hardly what the unemployed need. i urge members to oppose this bill and insist that any further spending is actually paid for. if the speaker's right, that unemployment benefits are the most stimulative thing we can do, then it will help the economy to cut other less effective stimulus spending and use it to pay for benefits like these. that is the sort of budgeting, if we were inclined to pass a budget, that we should have been

doing all along. and it's the only hope for turning this economy around and actually creating jobs that all americans want and the unemployed need most of all. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, our subcommittee chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for fo four minutes, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, when most of our republican colleagues vote no against extending unemployment benefits for americans today, these people have who have lost their job through no fault of their own, they're doing it and they'll say it's because of the deficit. but in reality they're simply trying to make the president fail at any cost. we have precedent here for that. back in the 1990 when newt

gingrich ruled this place, they thought the american people were stupid, but it didn't work then and it won't work now. in december, 1995, newt gingrich thought he could win the presidency for the republican party by shutting down the government. and proving that bill clinton was infective. you all remember that -- in effective. you remember that instead the american people overwhelmingly elected bill clinton to office in 1996. now they've got the same play book again, they're running it again. the republican leadership in congress has decided that the way for the republicans to get the white house back is by denying unemployment benefits to workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, show them that this government doesn't work. for over six weeks they've held displaced workers as hostages. now, you would think they would have learned from gingrich back

in 1995, it doesn't work. he only held the country hostage for a few days and then he gave it up. because people need to look at what the senate republicans are doing in the other body to see exactly what they're doing again today. even after the senate broke the republican filibuster on restoring unemployment benefits two days ago, the republicans insisted on running out every minute of time left on the clock before allowing a final vote on this bill. they wanted to dangle those workers out there for yet one more day. they wanted them to sit at home and wonder, is it going to happen? how am i going to feed my kids? can i pay for my house? for families without income who rely on unemployment benefits to make ends meet, every day counts.

republicans clearly couldn't care less. and they forced these unemployed workers to twist in the wind for one more day. this is a slap in the face to millions of americans who are struggling to find work and rely on unemployment benefits as a lifeline. this effort to undermine the ineffectiveness of president obama by denying unemployment benefits to workers and by denying the president the power to create jobs will ultimately fail. republicans have done nothing more than help assure that mr. obama will be elected a second time. good move, guys. the american people will remember and despite what the republicans think the voters are not stupid. they don't want the ghosts of newt gingrich running this country and they don't want a return to the failed economic policies of president bush. they know that they want this government to help people when

they need help and they know that -- they didn't lose their job because they did something wrong. greed on wall street got them. they are suffering because of that greed which we dealt with a couple of days ago. but they need a check to pay the rent and pay for food. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: ms. secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to h.j.res. 83, approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the burmese freedom and democracy act of 2003 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. just to briefly respond to the

previous speaker, we want to look forward, we don't want to look back. we don't want a cynical look to the past, we want a positive vision to the future for the american people which means we want to go along and promote growth in the economy and do an extension of unemployment benefits in a responsible way, by paying for it, by eliminating wasteful spending in the stimulus package. and with that i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. brown-waite, a member of the house ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. brown-waite: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the 15% of my constituents who have lost their jobs. but i also rise in support of the 85% who are struggling to hold onto their jobs. . debt matters. what we have seen with the threat of default in greece and what that did to the world economy and our own economy is similar to what we may be entering into.

given our tremendous reliance on borrowing, a similar loss of confidence in the united states would be devastating. the administration may have his cheerleaders and spin masters out in front telling the cameras how swell everybody is going to be despite the work ahead, but businesses, those very entities that actually do the hiring, the innovating, and the investing aren't buying. they don't have a political motivation behind their analysis. it's simply reality as they see it. small businesses are not confident about where this country is headed and neither are their customers. presidents can actually have a huge influence on consumer confidence, but every time this president gives a speech threatening american entrepreneurs, he makes things worse. as for debt, i understand the very childish playground temptation, point fingers, and names, and say, you borrowed, too. but i also understand that businesses and consumers don't

care about that because it doesn't fix the problem. all we ask is that the unemployment, something we all agree on, be paid for using funds already obligated for the economic recovery. we and the american people point out and not so subtly at times that the way you are using the stimulus money is simply a waste of time, effort, and certainly money. borrowing more when it pushes us ever closer to the edge just to continue spending money on stimulus road signs is certainly unacceptable to them and is unacceptable to me. i'm sorry that you refuse a compromise, but that's where we are today. i would ask the gentleman if i could have another 20 seconds. mr. bhutanny -- mr. boustany: i yield 20 seconds. ms. brown-waite: that's where we are today. americans want us to pay for

this bill and not borrow another $34 billion. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yield back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i first ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on my motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. speaker, after i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, i ask unanimous consent that mr. mcdermott, the subcommittee chair, be allowed to manage the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rangel: thank you, chairman levin, for giving me this opportunity. and gun to congressman mcdermott for working so hard to try and

protect those people who have lost their opportunity to take care of their families because they have lost their jobs. i think we are hearing too much about republican and democrat today. we certainly are hearing too much about oil drilling and the issues. but as we go home as members of congress, i don't think people come up and say i'm a democrat and i need help or i'm a republican or i need help. they say i need a job. i'm willing to do anything. i'm losing my dignity and my self-esteem. my daughter was in college. i had to teller that she won't be able to go back. -- i had to tell her that she won't be able to go back. i keep ignoring my creditor's calls because i lost my job. there were so many dreams and aspirations i had for me and my family. so many hopes that i thought

that in this great country i could fulfill. i thought it because i thought i was on the road to economic success. i knew i was doing better than my parents and i hoped so daily that my kids would be able to say they would do better than me. those that have finished school can't find jobs. can't afford homes. families have consolidated the limited resources. and the greatest thing about this wonderful country is that you don't have to be successful if you really trust and hope that you can be successful. it's not like other countries where you are stuck where you are born and you can't aspire to do better. but we are reaching that point where americans have lost faith in our financial centers, they have lost faith in terms of the insurance health providers.

god knows they have lost faith in the congress. but when they start losing faith in themselves, that's when our country is in trouble. when they start believing that they cannot make it, that they are losing their dignity, that they are unable to put food on the table, provide shelter for their families, provide hope for their kids, america is losing something that we may not be able to recover. notwithstanding what happens from our economy. how can people talk about deficits and pay fors when a person is just asking for a little help? what difference does it make if we are able to take the $30 billion? it is not spending. this is investment. it's an investment not in foreigners, not in protecting

democracy, it's an investment of people who love and want to work. i think, mr. speaker, we ought to give them an opportunity because in taking care of their needs they take care of our small businesses, too. i yield back whatever time i have. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. yes, it is an investment, but it's one we can pay for and that's the sad state we are in today because we are being refused the ability to even offer those kinds of amendments. with that, mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to my friend, member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from nevada, mr. heller. four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for four minutes. mr. heller: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman yielding time. the answer to his statement is it's absolutely correct. this can be paid for. i come from a state, state of

nevada, that has 14.2% unemployment. these are very, very tough times. during the hearings i submitted legislation that would actually pay for this piece of legislation. we can pay for it. it's not that the majority can't pay for it. it's that they don't want to pay for it. in fact, if you take a look at november, 2009, with the facing the unemployment insurance extension bill, back then in 2009 it was fully paid for and the administration itself came out and supported a bill that was paid for. and at the time unemployment was higher than it is today nationwide. don't tell me the administration doesn't think this ought to be paid for. if they wanted to pay for it, 9.8%, why don't they want to pay for it today? i want to speak a little bit about the failed stimulus bill because i think some general questions reported by way of earlier debate and that is whether or not the stimulus bill has actually worked. we have lost two million jobs in this country since the stimulus

bill was passed. 47 of 50 states, 47 of 50 states have lost jobs since this democratic crafted stimulus bill. and it's no wonder in recent polls most americans think that elvis is alive. more people think elvis is alive than the stimulus bill has worked. that's failure. nevada's unemployment, clark county unemployment has gone up 40%. that's undisputable. take clark county alone. there are those who say the stimulus is working in las vegas. yet just last month almost 3,500 people filed for unemployment benefits. you take the stimulus down in las vegas, nearly 40,000 people have lost their jobs in las vegas. tell me the stimulus is working in las vegas. take nevada as a whole, just last month, 4,100 people filed for unemployment claims. take the state since the stimulus. almost 50,000 people have lost

their jobs in las vegas. tell me that the stimulus has worked in my district. i would debate anybody on this and i'll wait for my phone to ring. just talk a little bit about the fact that in nevada our employment level is 50% higher than the national average. if we had the national average in the state of nevada, there would be 60,000 fewer unemployed nevadans right now. however, there is one place in america where the stimulus has worked and i'll give the other side credit for this and that's washington, d.c. government jobs have grown by 201,000. 201,000 jobs have been created in washington d.c. since the stimulus has passed. i want to -- some believe there are unobligated stimulus funds and i don't agree with that. we can use unobligated stimulus fund. go to www.recovery.gov.

the administration's own website. take a look at it. they will show you that half of the stimulus funds at this point have not been spent. can we take $4 billion, more than $00 billion that's in unduesed stimulus funds, to pay for this unemployment extension? that would be the right thing to do. i think that our children and grandchildren's future are worth the dime on the dollar. some apparently don't. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. neal: i thank mr. mcdermott. i stand in full support of this emergency legislation that will restore the safety net to millions of american families. those families have been waiting for this relief since june. their faith has been tested but today we are going to extend the help that they need. i have spoken many times on this floor of the legendary mayor of boston, james michael curly, a

great orator. he spoke with great empathy about the forgotten man. those who we are talking about today. the forgotten man and woman. those individuals who have worked hard and played by the rules and every reason to believe that america ought to provide them assistance in this difficult time. he also would have suggested in that simplestity that the great ally of our civilization was a full stomach. we need to be reminded of that grim economic statistic for those who are outside the mainstream. let me also remind our friends here on the other side in record time, in october of 2008, this congress came to the aid of wall street. it didn't take us long to embrace the troubled asset relief program of george bush. to keep standing many of those institutions that help create the problem that we currently find ourselves in.

there are millions of people, those who have served in vietnam, those who have served in afghanistan and iraq and other theaters around the world who are struggling in this economy. america is about building a community. a place where no one wants to be abandoned and no one wants to be left behind. the great count bounty of god's work has been to ensure that people in america regardless of their political differences have enough to eat and shelter. this opportunity to extend unemployment benefits for the american people ought to meet this moment and i urge adoption of this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. in addition to what mr. hoyer said about using the unused stimulus funds, mr. obey has hailed amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill made on july 1 that were paid for by repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the stimulus

law. in the other body, the chairman of the senate finance committee, mr. baucus, has suggested -- bachus, has suggested the same. a fiscally responsible way to not only take care of the forgotten man and woman today, but to prevent even more from being forgotten in the future. and with that, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield time, three minutes, to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. mr. scalise and i have worked together on american competitiveness, trying to achieve energy independence, to meet our national security needs, and to grow jobs. with that i yield three minutes to mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from louisiana for yielding time. mr. speaker, a year and a half ago the liberals running congress passed the stimulus bill claiming they needed to add another $787 billion to the national debt in order to keep unemployment below 8%.

of course now a year and a half later, unemployment's approaching 10% so the first plan failed miserably. so they are coming with a plan to add another $34 billion to the national debt regarding unemployment that they don't want to work with us on to at least pay for, using some of that failed stimulus plan. in fact they are still trying to defend the stimulus plan that most americans recognize only grew the size of government and did nothing to help stimulate the economy. and the sad irony of this is that millions of american people are unemployed as a direct result of the policies of this administration. in fact a very real example is occurring right now in south louisiana. just yesterday there was a rally in south louisiana where over 10,000 people showed up to oppose this arbitrary and capricious ban by president obama on drilling in the gulf. . and they try to pit it as safety

versus jobs and in fact the president's own safety commission, he appointed after the explosion of the deepwater horizon, said that the moratorium is a bad idea and in fact they went on to say that this moratorium will decrease safety in the gulf. that's right. the moratorium that the president himself imposed that's costing our state thousands of jobs, thousands more people on unemployment that would much rather a job than the unemployment check than president obama's offering them, their job is taken away by the president not for scientific reasons, because the president's own scientists say the moratorium's a bad idea and will decrease safety, but for political reasons. and in fact as my colleague from louisiana pointed out our entire delegation has been trying for six weeks now to meet with the president to discuss this ill-conceived idea and he refuses to meet with us. and yet you still have hundreds of people each week being added to the unemployment roll because of the president's policy. what the president needs to do is actually work with us to

create jobs instead of continuing to push policies that are running people onto the unemployment rolls, putting more jobs overseas and putting our country at greater risk of energy independence because now our energy supply hasn't decreased but now you're going to actually have more oil imported from these middle eastern countries that don't like us, and by the way, 70% of all oil spills come from tankers importing oil. and now the president is just -- has just made our country more dependent on that imported oil with the addition of his ban on drilling that's creating more unemployment in our state. these policies are wrecking our economy. what we need is to create jobs and part of that means you put good policies in place that help create jobs so that people don't continue to go on the unemployment roll because of the obama policy. that's what we need to do is get a different agenda. the american people are saying, where are the jobs? and all they get is more deficit spending from this administration. they just don't get it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i can't help but respond to the change of subject from the gentleman from louisiana. i guess fishermen aren't worth anything. fishermen are worthless, all that sea stuff that comes up and they sell all over the place they don't care about that. all they want to do is drill for oil. that the president is careful and prudent and says, let's look at this drilling before we go on with it, because we've just proved that the oil companies are reckless, they've proved it for 79 days in the gulf and if you can't learn from that and realize what it's doing to crabbers and to shrimp fishermen and to oyster beds then you have missed the point. mr. boustany: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcdermott: i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, mr.

speaker. people all over illinois and all over america are waiting with baited breath and they're waiting to pay utility bills, to pay house notes, to make mortgage payments, to catch up on their rent, to pay college tuition, to buy food for their children. but they're also waiting to say, thank you, nancy pelosi. they want to say, thank you, harry reid. they're waiting to say, thank you, united states congress. they want to say, thank you, barack obama. because the action that you just took this day means to us that you are working for us. you have reinforced our confidence in our government. you have said to us that we do

matter and i know that the people of illinois will be saying, thank you, our government. i urge passage and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i have to respond to my friend from the state of washington. and i would say that i would not have the audacity to speak for the people of washington because i haven't had the chance to actually get to know them. and i can tell the gentleman that i do know the fishermen and oystermen and shrimpers and those who run boats down in my state of louisiana. and if they were here on the house floor today they would say, please do not kick us when we're down. lift this ban on drilling because it's going to kill our economy. the shame fishermen and oystermen and shrimpers who are losing their jobs. that's why we need sensible policies. that's why we need sensible policies, mr. speaker.

we're all for extending the unemployment benefit insurance but we know we can do it in a responsible way by paying for it with unspent stimulus money. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the lady from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. with almost half of the unemployed out of work for more than six months, i'm extremely disappointed that partisan bickering has delayed this important relief to american familyless. i want to share with you what one of my constituents wrote to me and he said, i'll quote, i worked all my life and supported myself and didn't ask for any special treatment. there is pride, pride that comes from work. no one is ready and willing to work more than me. but there just isn't any. since the last thing of unemployment benefits, millions have lost benefits keeping their families in their homes and food on the table. but what we and people may not know or really appreciate is

that this also includes tens of thousands of former service members and reservists who return home and find themselves without work. how, i ask you, mr. speaker, how does prohibiting them from being able to pay their electric and grocery bills help our economy recover? i urge my colleagues to join me in strong support of this extension. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields the balance of the time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, thank you, mr. speaker, and let me thank the gentleman for yielding, for his steady and undying support for people who really have had -- who have had a very tough time and have not had any opportunities for many

years now. thank you, mr. mcdermott, for your leadership. you know, we too are saying and i'm listening to the debate here about jobs, we're saying, where are the jobs? and from what i remember, mr. speaker, there are very few republican votes for the many job creation bills which democrats have passed. so if you're not going to support a real jobs initiative, i can't understand for the life of me why in the world won't you support just the basics for people, just the bit of help for those who have no jobs and for those who you won't help get a job? support for unemployment compensation speaks really to who we are as a country. this is a moral and an ethical issue that those who really care about the least of these should support. people have lost their jobs for a variety of reasons.

primarily, yes, the economic policies of the previous administration. we know many people who have lost their jobs due to not being able to find work in this new economy. people have lost their jobs because their communities have been shut down as a result of the foreclosure crisis. they've lost their homes, they've lost their jobs, they have no health care. i mean, what in the world is going on in our country? i think, you know, until we figure this out, i think some of us really get it in terms of the economic policies and what we need to do, but until we make the case in a way that republicans get it, the least we could do is just help people pay their rent and for those who still have mortgages, pay their mortgage. for those who, you know, don't have enough food, to basically buy food for their kids. we can't even get the republicans to support a youth jobs initiative. my goodness, you know, we have

over 40% minority youth, african-american and latino youth, who are unemployed and these young people need jobs. they need jobs not only to develop their work skills and work experience but they have to help their families put food on the table and pay the rent. so, for goodness sakes, just help these people survive and weather these storms right now because they need something to get through this. otherwise we're going to see a country that we all don't want to see, one that we don't recognize, one that does not care about the common good and this is about the common good. we all have a duty and responsibility to make sure everyone at least is able to survive through these very terrible times. thank you, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, who serves on the president's fiscal responsibility commission. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the

gentleman for yielding and indeed this is the difference between the two parties here today. as i've listened carefully to the debate, i haven't heard anybody say we shouldn't be extending unemployment benefits. what i have heard is that one side wants to borrow 43 cents on the dollar mainly from the chinese and send the bill to our children and grandchildren. those are my friends on the democratic side of the aisle. on this side of the aisle we're saying, you know, all the trillions of stimulus money, the $1.2 trillion when you add in the interest factor, those unspent funds, maybe some of the unspent tarp funds, these programs that have helped continue to mire us in almost double-digit unemployment, maybe we could use some of those funds instead and not add to the single largest debt in america's history that's only getting worse under their watch, mr. speaker.

that's the primary difference here today. and we must show that we are a fiscally responsible congress today to create jobs. ultimately the people in america don't want more unemployment checks, they want more paychecks. and it's the policies of this president, the policies of this congress, brought about this by the federal takeover of health care, brought about by this huge permanent wall street bailout bill where the ink is barely dry, the threaten cap and tax bill, and the massive debt that we're drowning in, under the president's own budget we will be paying almost $1 trillion in interest alone on the national debt. i mean, that's the kind of policies that are -- our distinguished democratic majority leader likened to fiscal child abuse. i haven't heard that rhetoric

recently, but i hope he still believes it. and because that's what we're engaged in. so i do not understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to pay for. this i certainly hear the phrase pay as -- pay for this. i certainly hear the phrase pay as you go frequently but i don't see it practiced. i serve on the president's fiscal responsibility commission. many people consider that title to be an objectiony moron. we will debate that -- oxymoron, we will debate that later. but the former chief of staff to president clinton had said that our debt is a cancer that can destroy us from within. this isn't republican is verbiage, this is democratic verbiage. so why, why do the democrats refuse to pay for this? why do they continue to engage in what the majority leader once termed fiscal child abuse? again, that's where the debate is. the debate is, are you going to pay for the unemployment

insurance or are you going to take the burden and put it on our children and grandchildren yet again? that is unconscionable, unsustainable and it ought to be immoral. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the majority leader of the house of representatives, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. and the time when it's my opportunity to speak is sometimes good and i think this is one of them. mr. hensarling just spoke. i have great respect for mr. hensarling. he works hard and focuses. he's philosophically well grounded and he follows his philosophy. i disagree with his philosophy. his fiscal premises. and his fiscal premises that were part of the last administration's approach to the finances of this country

increased our deficit by 87%, from $5 trillion essentially to a little over $10 trillion. didn't quite double it, but 87% more debt under the bush administration. , that i -- think a call fiscal child abuse. why? because it was not done at a time of fiscal crisis, with large unemployment. than you employment was caused -- that unemployment was caused by the policies of the last administration. why do i say that? because under the clinton administration we created 21 million jobs in the private sector, just a little short of 21 million jobs, 22.8 million overall when you include public employment. and during the bush administration, how did it relate to that 21.1 million new jobs in the private sector? one millionle.

-- one million. how did it relate to job production, 265,000 under the clinton administration and 11,000 per month under the bush administration. that's what their economic policies brought. not $40 billion or $34 billion borrowed money but trillions with an s of borrowed money to fund tax cuts which they did not pay for. they weren't continuations of the tax code, as jon kyl, the second ranking republican leader in the senate, now argues ought not to be paid for. $687 billion we just ought to continue that for the wealthiest in our country, not the little children who are worried about whether their parents are going to be able to afford the mortgage or afford to buy -- put bread on the

table. that's what we're talking in this bill. for literally millions of people who have run out of support. now, will they run out of support in this moral country? they will not ultimately run out of support. they will be put on welfare and food stamps. and they won't be available to the insurance for which their employer and they participate and providing so that in the contingency that we ran the economy into the ditch, the worst economy in three quarters of a century wrought by the bush economic policies to which mr. sessions, the chairman of their campaign committee, says they want to return to the exact agenda. i'm so pleased i had the opportunity to come and respond to my friend from texas. it does demonstrate the difference between our two parties, absolutely. jon kyl who says we ought to

borrow $686 billion from the chinese to give it to the wealthiest in america and democrats who say we want to borrow $34 billion to give it to the children of america whose families are in need, yes, that is the difference, if my friend from texas wants to make that the difference. this is about saying that we have an emergency, and historically from ronald reagan to today, ronald reagan i, bush i and bush ii, what did you do when you were in charge? you borrowed during times of economic trouble to give unemployment insurance. we're doing the same thing. why did we do that? because we perceived it to be an emergency, an emergency that people in the richest nation on the face of the earth were about to run out of the ability to keep their homes, buy their food, clothe their children, a

moral and great country thinks that's an emergency. that's what this vote is all about. this vote is also about, as the gentleman from texas has said, expressing our values. i agree with that. and i'm going to express my values and i urge members of this house to express their values, this day on this vote as millions of people have lost their unemployment insurance because we couldn't get 60 votes in the senate. had almost every democrat saying we need help now. people are running out of the ability to support themselves now. we paid insurance for now. so i urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. a few weeks -- a few months ago we passed unemployment insurance through this house by

unanimous consent. the election wasn't as approximate it is now. i just made a speech and i have been criticized by some on my side of the aisle and some others to say we need to put everything on the table. i reiterate that today, we need to put everything on the table, no sacred could you say. i have three children, three -- no sacred cows. i have three children, three great grandchild and one great grandchild. i say to them and others in the country, we have a moral responsibility to get a handle on this deficit. a reporter was asking me did i agree with mr. bernanke's comment that we ought to pay if we extended the tax cuts and i said to him this, at a time of

fiscal crisis when our economy is struggling to get back from the ditch it was in when this administration took over, how much of a ditch? during the last year of the clinton administration we had a -- we added 1.9 million new jobs, i tell my friend from texas. 1.9 million new jobs in america, and it was a slowdown period. during the last year of the bush administration, after the economic policies that were pursued from 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and through 2009, even though we took the congress we couldn't do anything because the president would veto legislation and did in fact veto legislation, 3.8 million americans lost their jobs. that's a difference of 1 dch 9 million new -- 1.9 million new jobs during the last month of

the clinton administration. is there any wonder why there is pain in america and families are in great distress and they are angry and they have angst and we share that? today does not solve the problem but today reaches out to those folks in distress and say in the short term on an emergency basis we are going to continue to give you help so you can support your families. in this the wealthiest nation on the face of this earth. you worked hard, you paid in and through no fault of your own you lost your job. maybe because of the fault of wall street that my friend believes we were too harsh on. we're imposing rules on so they can play by the rules and not squander and take risk that put wall street profits before main street stability. yes. and also we're not going to

apologize to the b.p. oil company and say we're sorry that we expect you to be accountable for the negligence that caused millions of people to be in economic distress. we are not going to say sorry. some people want to say sorry, but the president of the united states suggested, hey, you need to help those people. maybe helping people is a difference between our two parties. i don't necessarily think that. i don't want to say that. but if that's the difference, today is a day when 435 of us can stand up and vote aye to help millions of americans in deep distress through no fault of their own. i urge my colleagues to stand up and let people know that you're on their side. and i yieldback the balance of

my time. -- and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i remind my friend, the distinguished majority leader of the house, that in the 1990's during the clinton administration there was a great bipartisan effort that led to those balanced budgets because there was a republican majority in -- mr. hoyer: will my friend yield on that point? mr. boustany: i yield. mr. hoyer: it's a good point. i ask my friend, that is true. why couldn't you do it when you had the house, the senate and the presidency? mr. boustany: and i will reclaim my time, mr. speaker. i will reclaim my time and i will remind the majority leader that we have the opportunity to go forward now and not cast blame on the past so i would say that -- mr. hoyer: i missed the answer. mr. boustany: president obama got it right in november, 2009, regarding unemployment benefit extension which was fully paid for and he said, and i quote,

fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. the administration, therefore, supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill, end quote. all we're saying is there's a better way to do this and that is to pay for this extension. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, let me thank the gentleman for giving me a moment to speak. you know, the -- my friends from the party opposite referred to deficits and debts. deficits are important. the debts are important. all these things are critical. but i guess my question is, when the republican caucus voted to give the most wealthy and most privileged members of american society $700---

$700-plus billion tax cut, why didn't they pay for it? when the prescription drug handout was give to big pharma, no fiscal responsibility then. but when the poor, hardworking people of america find themselves without work and say, you know what, still looking for work, haven't found one and need some help from my fellow americans is like, no, no, no. we can't help you because we have to worry about the deficit. why so much concern, so much heart felt angst about what the wealthiest, most privileged americans need but nothing for a cold heart and a closed purse for people who are in an emergency situation? mr. speaker, i ask, what about the debts of the people who are unemployed? what about them having to go to family and borrow money? what about them being captured

by the payday lenders and folks who take advantage of poor people who don't have any money and don't have unemployment insurance? what about their debt? the american people should respond. i don't want to say to the party opposite that this is heartless. it looks that way. i don't want my friends in the opposite show that they don't support poor people. this is the right time. i would say if i have a moment, the fact is for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits $1.60 goes not economy which means we begin to pull ourselves out of this situation and deal with this deficit. thank you very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms.

kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the kind chairman, mr. mcdermott, for yielding me the two minutes. and sometimes when they say gentlewoman i don't feel so gentle on the subject of unemployment. and in fact i rise in strong support of this bill which is long overdue because of the delays in the other chamber. and i want to thank chairman mcdermott for his extraordinary leadership and our speaker for bringing this bill forward. all the economic studies show that in fact direct consumer spending that results from the expenditure of unemployment checks on basics, paying for food, paying your mortgage so you don't lose your home, making your car payment on that old jalopy you used to go to work, this has the largest bang inside our economy to move it up than any investment we can make other than in infrastructure investment, when we're employing people, building bridges, building roads, some people on the other side of the aisle are making

fun of. it's no fun to go over a bridge that collapses. we saw that in minnesota. we need issues in a great nation like america we take care of. we're one of the platforms that holds this country up. hundreds of thousands of them remain out of work and they will be affected by the extension of these benefits but we have between 600,000 and a million people who are working in part-time jobs or fallen out of the work force because of no fault of their own. the obama administration has added more jobs by the end of august than the whole bush administration did in eight years except create more wars, more unemployment and more outsourcing of jobs. i can't explain them. we don't live in the same world. i respect people who go to work every day. i respect those who get injured on the job. i respect those farmers who are out in the fields right now harvesting crops. i respect those who work for

them. i respect the people who work in our auto plants. i respect the people working in 100-degree weather on bridges in my district and trying to hold things together until a better day comes. the least we can do is return money to them that they already paid in, that their employers already paid in. they earned it. i say to the gentleman, i support this bill 1,000%. ohioans are waiting for their unemployment checks, but most of all, they want to go back to work. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i had not intended to speak yet again on this subject but to heart last three speakers, clearly there appears to be -- hear the last three speakers, clearly there appears to be confusion about unemployment checks and pay checks. what we've heard the speaker said, i wish i had her exact quote in front of me, that essentially by putting out more

unemployment checks that this is one of the best ways to create paychecks. i've never heard such circular logic in my life. now, clearly we need an extension of unemployment. i mean, i must admit, i find it somewhat eye chronic that the president of the united states brings -- ironic that the president of the united states brings up three unemployed workers, to the best of my knowledge they've been unemployed during his president circumstances what a testament to his policies and the policies of this institution, again, between a national takeover of a health care plan, employers don't know how much their health care costs are going to be, they're not creating new jobs. threaten cap and trade, nobody knows what their energy costs are going to be. no new job creation. we have this financial regulatory bill. nobody know what is the cost of capital is going to be, particularly with a bureau that has the ability to ban and ration credit for small businesses. you've got private business sitting on almost $2 trillion

that could be employed for paychecks but instead once again due to the policies of my friends on the other side of the aisle we're having the debate on unemployment checks instead. and let me make sure that people aren't drowning from all the straw in the debate today. here's the debate. in the words of the democratic majority leader, are we going to engage in fiscal child abuse and borrow the money principal pli from the chy toes to pay for this, or are we not? that's the question. that is the only question that is before the house right now. are we going to borrow the money from our children and grandchildren, send them the bill, or are we going to pay for it today and quit using it on failed stimulus plans? that's the debate the american people -- debate, the american people are not confused and they want pay checks, not unemployment checks -- paychecks and not unemployment checks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time -- or excuse me, i reserve the

balance of my time and reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. for clarification sake, i assume the gentleman has no other members wishing to speak. then, mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. mr. speaker, this is about where we're going to pay for this or -- whether we're going to pay for this or not. consider that this is the eighth time this congress is going to extend these benefits. eighth time. that's an indication that the current economic policy this administration and this congress is a failure. i mentioned earlier the fact of the matter is we have a choice. we can do this in a fiscally responsible way or we can choose to run up additional debt on our children and grandchildren to the tune of $34 billion between now and november. again, i think the president, president obama got it right in the statement of administration policy in november, 2009, when

the unemployment benefit extension was actually paid for. gernings i'm going to quote what he said. fiscal responsibility is central to the medium term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. the administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill. now, if fiscal responsibility helps the economy and job creation, then fiscal irresponsibility of this bill before us will hurt the economy and job creation. i think the american people have spoken. they want us to do this but they want to us pay for it. let's do the right thing and actually pay for the spending we approve and help our economy grow, help job creation as the administration said, a fiscally responsible approach is what's needed. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, as

we close this debate and finally put this on the backburner until november when we have to come back and look at it again, perhaps, we'll see, i sense one of the speakers on the other side talked about confusion. my view is that the confusion here is between whether we're going to send unemployment checks or we're going to tell people, go hungry. that's the confusion. people say, well, it's about paying for it. i will remind my colleagues on the other side, mr. bush was president for eight years and when we zun employment we did it on an emergency basis, we never paid for it one time and you guys had -- the republicans -- i'm not supposed to address them directly, they didn't pay for it, mr. speaker. they were in charge and their

president was in charge but they called it an emergency. now under mr. obama it's not an emergency. suddenly we're going to -- we're going to tie up people's minds and try and confuse them but the fact is that for six weeks we have said to workers in this country, we are not going to extend benefits. now, we have never in the history of this country, when unemployment was at 7.2% or above, failed to extend benefits. until the republicans got a serious case of fiscal -- well, i'm not going to say exactly what i think. but fiscal disease has overtaken their mind. and they suddenly caught this thing, i don't know, it must be in the air around here, or somewhere down around the ohio river, between cincinnati and

kentucky, they got leadership who said, you know, if we kin effect everybody with this fiscal fear -- if we can infect everybody with this fiscal year, we'll just sacrifice a few million, it's only 2 1/2 million people who are going to lose their benefits, it's not very many, there's 300 million in america and we can throw away 2 1/2 million. that's easy. they won't vote. they're too stupid to know who's doing it to them. that's the kind of message you're sending when you are saying you won't give unemployment benefits. this is so easily understood by the american people. this is not climate change, this is not all the complicated stuff. some people around here think the american people have a very short memory span. but they don't. on stuff wrts right down to the bone -- where it's right down to the bone. and you will remember this day as the day when finally the republicans came to their

senses. they finally said, you know this ain't going to work, it really ain't going to work. we're not going to admit it, we're going to say we were doing it on principle but there's no principle at the table when the mother opens the cup board and there's nothing in it. or when the lights aren't turned on because you haven't paid the utility bills. or when the water's turned off because you haven't paid your water bill. what does a mother say the principle is? now, kids, get in the bath tub, but there's no water. clean yourself up, right? what kind of nonsense is this? you think this money is going for people to buy i pads or -- ipads or iphones or what? -- whatever? this is going for the necessities of life. and you're saying to ordinary people in this country, well, we have a principle that we, under

the democrats we have to pay for it. now, not under the democrats. and i can hardly wait until we get the proposals over from the senate to extend the tax breaks. and watch you guys do a double flip. you won't get -- you will get a 10 in olympic terms for your ability to do a double flip and say, well, now we don't have to pay for it. and watch, they're going to send over the estate tax. they are going to send over a bailout for the people at the very top and you're going to say, oh, well we don't have to pay for them, no. they're very rich and we can't, no, no, no, we can't pay for that. no, no. but we're going to make us pay for the people who are in the most dire distress in this society. it's really shameful and i enjoy -- i'm going to watch with pleasure as you vote no, as you vote yourself out of here. i yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

economy at the center for american progress.

this weekend, discussions by eight congressmen, senators, authors and activists beginning at 1:00 p.m. on sunday, starting at 1:00, the roosevelt reading festival. authors talk about their books on fdr, his policy and his legacy. a weekend filled with nonfiction books on c-span to. for the complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> in the house oversight and the government reform committee looked at the reorganization of the minerals management service, the agency formerly responsible for regulating offshore drilling. interior secretary can salazar and the head of the newly created bureau of ocean

management testify. this is just under two hours. >> good morning and thank you for being here. the interior department is responsible for the oversight of offshore oil drilling. unfortunately, the bp oil spill followed a long history of regulatory and ethical failures at the interior department and its minerals management service. the deepwater horizon disaster has now exposed quite -- exposed what appears to be continuing major problems at mms. over the last decade, mms has essentially it permitted the oil

industry to police itself. for example, in 2000, at mms issued an alert requiring all companies to have a backup system to activate a blowout preventers. one of the component that felled, attributed to the deepwater horizon explosion, but exacerbated the size of the oil spill. but mms had allowed all oil officials to determine how they wanted to comply with this requirement. in other words, bp and the oil companies or essentially on the honors system -- were essentially on the honor system. this is not an effective approach to ensuring safe, offshore drilling. mistakes were made worse by the rapid growth of offshore drilling in the gulf. over the last two decades, the

number of offshore rigs in the gulf of mexico has expanded dramatically and extended further offshore into much deeper waters. yet at the same time, and amassed remains relatively small -- mms remains relatively small, had trouble recruiting qualified inspectors, and could not keep up. though drilling in the gulf has expanded by tenfold, the number of inspectors had only grown by 13%. the results? fewer than 58 inspectors are currently responsible for conducting over 18,000 in sections annually -- inspections annually. there is a built-in conflict of interest. when mms was created it was given the dueling responsibilities of promoting

drilling and collecting royalty payments on one hand, while also issuing and enforcing environmental and safety regulations on the other hand. it seems as though it was only a matter of time before this responsibility conflict would lead to the disaster we're seeing here today. in short, it was a tug-of-war between drilling and safety. as the bp disaster illustrates, safety found itself on the losing side of the struggle. even worse, regulatory failures have been accompanied by ethical failures. in 2008, the interior department inspector general found a culture of ethical failures within the mms royalty in kind program. the investigation revealed that over a four-year period, senior

employees improperly accepted gifts and engaged in sex and drug abuse with company employees. unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. just last month, another report was released which found that inspectors improperly accepted gifts from all companies -- from oil companies. additionally, at least one employee simultaneously conducted inspections of an oil company operation while negotiating employment with the very same company. in addition, in a series of reports, gao found that fraud and a royalty collections have resulted in millions of dollars in lost revenue. we can and must do a better job overseeing offshore oil and gas activity. today we will hear directly from the secretary about how exactly

they plan to implement the reorganization and increased oversight and accountability at mms, which we are anxious and eager to hear. before we begin, i want to make one final observation. while the interior department is responsible for regulating the oil industry, and they have been taking a lot of people that, it does not change the fact that bp was responsible for the safety of its oil wells, and bp was responsible in terms of responding to the oil spill. it is the peak that is ultimately responsible for the entire cleanup and -- it is bp that is ultimately responsible for the entire cleanup and the cost, as well as the job losses

and loss of income that resulted from the spill. i am committed to ensuring that the government has the authority and the ability to effectively regulate the safety of offshore drilling. on that note, i now yield five minutes to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from california. >> thank you. thank you for holding this important hearing. five years ago, we began looking at failures into the gulf and more. in light of hurricane katrina, we knew that this was a sensitive area and one in that would struggle for years to come, and wanda was vulnerable to failures by the federal government -- one that was it will travel to failures by the federal government in a just an area or two. whether it was the levees that failed to protect the people of new orleans, or the plan approved by mineral management service that failed to even consider the possibility that

oil could come ashore in a disaster of this size, we, the federal government, have failed. every day, every american hears it somewhere that aging is only as strong as its weakest link. there were two weeks of leaks that led to this disaster -- two weak links that led to this disaster, bp failing to maintain their own safety standards and being in too big of a hurry to cut corners and cut costs, ultimately into the loss of life and the loss of billions of dollars to the american people around the gulf and beyond. but there was another weak link, a well-noted weak link, one that this committee has been pursuing change in for almost six years now, a mineral management service. an organization that has checks and balances that mean nothing.

years ago we discovered that when a contract was signed, a person after person after person was required to initial it. the initial that and nothing else. they did not read it. they did not verify. they did not ask any questions. that kind of absence does not just go to the engineers that are hard to recruit. it goes to the very top of the organization and has under multiple administrations. in fact, problems in our first set of hearings go all the way back to the clinton administration. let us make it very clear. those problems were well-known during the entire bush administration, and for those eight years, a change did not occur. sadly, mr. secretary, during the year and a half of your administration, the change did not occur. i know that it seems like a very little bit of time, but if in fact the 20 or so bindings that have occurred by your own gao

and findings had been put together by the work of this committee sooner, i believe this could have been prevented. having said that, we need to look to the future. we need to look to real change in the minerals management service. i personally would not like to see it broken into three even smaller parts, but rather have the real success, either as an independent agency, or as one that has a level of clarity for the american people, much more similar to the epa. we need to have that. we need to have the american people understand that the proper revenue that has not come to the american people is a factor. the proper controls source -- proper controls and safeguards are a factor. we have all seen hearings, but we have not seen the amount of hearings that we should have had, and we have not had the follow-up by previous administrations or, to date, by your administration.

i believe that there are a number of factors that we can deal with today that have to do with the current disaster, with the number of factors including, if you will, an overstatement of available resources, and over reporting of available resources, and when they were there, in a number of other areas. this occurred under your watch. ultimately, this is the committee of oversight and reform. if those published reports that we want to deal with primarily, it is the discovery of documents that will allow us to take a firsthand in the reorganizations to ensure that when this is over with, we can count on an agency that recruits and trains the kind of second gasser's to an uessersustry -- second gass to an oil industry. i think it is important to note that there are many, many rigs

operating irresponsibly. italy takes one operating irresponsibly -- it only takes one operating irresponsibly to detect the oversight. if i recall, to give individuals were part of the inspection team. that is because there was a requirement to have two people up second-guessing each other. to my amazement, i learned that it was a father-son team. to the many to aim pen close organization teams. the american people want us to take care of a number of items, but they want us to go further. i will know today that four and other major oil companies have announced an investment and construction of a very large and designed to work in the gulf and perhaps in other areas

with a similar event should happen again. this kind of thinking is important. to the extent, mr. secretary, that you have been involved in it, i would like to personally applaud you. i believe that when we look at nexthe blowout preventer's generation, something that has been needed since 2003, and when we look at the recovery and response for a major shipwreck, a major hurricane, or even chemical failures, we all have a responsibility to see that we go with a program much more similar to putting a man on the man then simply misses as usual in the gulf. mr. chairman, i look forward to a hearing today. i look forward to the balance of discovery. i look forward to working with you and trying to oversee a the next couple of years a real birth of an organization unlike the old mms, and much more like a organization that we can all be ensured will keep good actors doing what they are supposed to

end bad actors all together out of the business. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i will also know recognized for three minutes the gentleman who is the chair of the subcommittee from ohio, congressman kucinich. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for calling this hearing. we are required to change the history of failed oversight. it is important that we do the work of oversight, but i also have to tell you, while i am sitting here looking at the preparation for the hearing and thinking about how we're going to focus on things -- for example, i am going to have some questions, you can think about it now, about the atlantis platform. 19 members of congress wrote to the mineral management service back in february, raising questions that engineering

documents -- about engineering documents, and did not get the answers we were entitled to. the breach occurred with deepwater horizon, but the questions we raised with respect to the atlantis platform or relevant not only to atlanta's -- were relevant not only to , but also to deepwater horizon and other rigs out there in the gulf. i does have to -- i just have to say something about this moment. there seems to be some feeling in this country that we can endlessly invade the natural world without any consequences. the catastrophe in the gulf put the lie to that, but we still believe that we can do it. we're still talking about doing more drilling.

we have built our whole economy around this. so, mr. secretary, you are being asked to defend a system which tralee is basically collapsing is basically collapsing. it really is. i thank you for your service, but the fact of the matter is, the system is collapsing. we think we can keep interfering in the natural world without any consequences. we think we can postpone the delivery and development of alternative energy. we think we can keep on living in this country the way we have been living without any correction of our courts even in the face of a tremendous catastrophe in the gulf. well we are going to have to start thinking again. i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from florida for three minutes. >> personal, i want to thank you

for convening this hearing. i am pleased to see the secretary year. there are very serious questions that need to be answered about what took place as well as what measures we have in place to ill thath the current spel i can now see run the coast of florida, the moratorium, we have so many questions. but you are here to the police said some light. -- but you are here to hopefully shed some light. i will put in the record a copy of a letter that cites three criminal and then stations -- investigations the air-launched during the budget

ministration -- during the bush administration on that agency. there are other questions that have to do with the policy of the new administration. i think a lot of people voted with president obama, on the other side, they thought they were the protectors of the environment and all of this, but it turns up they were asleep at the switch. what baffles me is how you could come up with a proposal to -- and i want to know if you were consulted on this budget proposal in 2011 to cut the coast guard budget, which is one of the first responders whenever you have an oil incident or a disaster in this country. in addition, $2 million cut from

mms, minerals management service's budget for environmental reviews. it is in here. these are proposals. i do not know if you had anything to do with this in february of this year. this is february. and then in march, the administration develops a policy to open offshore areas to oil drilling, including the gulf of mexico. so here we are cutting the assets is responsible for oversight and permitting, and there are questions about the rubber stamping carte blanche approval. this is the approval signed by your administration to drill in deep water, and then to rush to do more in deep water drilling. this is a list of 33 approvals by the obama administration.

there are only 27 operations in the gulf. half are exploratory. have a production. but you rushed to more drilling and cutting the assets. i would like to know how this policy was developed and if you had any party net -- part in it, or what you're thinking was. >> the gentleman's time is expired. let me indicate that the >> do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. if so, answer, i do. you may be seated. let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmati affirmative. we're delighted to have secretary salazar with us. he's serving as the 50th

secretary of the united states department of interior. prior to his confirmation, secretary salazar served as a senator from the great state of colorado before becoming senator, secretary salazar spent two terms as colorado's attorney general and served as chief legal counsel and executive director of the colorado department of natural resources in the cabinet of governor roy romer. welcome, and we are aware of your time constraints and we will respect them. no question about it. and then mr. michael bromwich was sworn in as -- to lead the bureau of ocean energy management regulations and enforcements formerly known as mms. on june the 21st, 2010, director bromwich previously served as inspector general for the department of justice and as an assistant u.s. attorney in the

southern district of new york, most recently director bromwich was a partner at the law firm of fried and frank where he specialized in conducting internal investigations. we welcome both of you. at this time i ask that each witness deliver their testimony within five minutes, which will allow the committee ample time to raise questions and also considering your time constraints, secretary, of course, you know the rules that they start out, the light is on green and then, of course, you know because you know all about these lights and all of a sudden they caution -- >> i'm not sure i know about these lights. >> that's another issue but also at the end it becomes red so, mr. secretary, you may begin. >> thank you very much chairman towns and thank you, congressman

issa and all the distinguished members of the committee here and at the outset let me just say thank you to the committee for the work that it has done in the prior years relative to putting into the spotlight some of the necessary reform efforts that are required of the minerals management service, many of those which we have been working on since day one when i became secretary of the interior. let me so outset just say to the members of the committee, i know you are all wondering about the status of where we are with respect to the containment of the oil leak out in the gulf of mexico. since day one and today is day plus 93, we have been working from early morning till late at night making sure that the entire arsenal of the united states of america is focused on the problem and i'm getting it resolved. myself and secretary -- two other members of the cabinet have been working on this from

day one and as of today, we see the light at the end of the tunnel. there is a shut-in that has occurred of the well, and the monitoring that we have required of bp is showing that it is holding, but the weather patterns that we are seeing may have some interruption in terms of getting to the ultimate sluice here, which is the ultimate kills that have to occur of this well. but we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. let me move to the subject area that i think this committee wants to explore, and that's the issue of responsibility and what is it that has happened here. let me frame it for this committee the way that i see it. this is a collective responsibility, and i do not believe that at the end of the day that the blame game is going to help us relative to how we move forward and develop the broad energy portfolio and the

comprehensive energy plan that is required of america, that we need to work together to fix the problem, make sure we learn the lessons from the incident and that we move forward with an energy portfolio that i think at the end of the day will include oil and gas. that has been the position of the president and my position as secretary of interior. in terms of the responsibility for this incident that brings us here today certainly bp and other companies that were involved have broken the rules and have strayed from the best practices of the industry. many investigations are going on, much of that has already been reported in the press. secondly, industry has made the long representations of both to the congress, as well as to the department of interior and others with respect to drilling safety, with respect to the ability to contain blow-outs and with respect to oil spill response, the efforts announced yesterday from the four major

companies moving forward with a billion dollar effort on which i was briefed will need significant additional work before we can be satisfied with at least one of those particular prongs that i think are essential to be righted. thirdly, the congress shares the responsibility. this committee has been at the forefront at least of exposing some ethical lapses but at the end of the day, the drilling that has occurred in the deep water drilling has been something this congress has also embraced and i recognize i tao was a member of the u.s. senate, the passage of the 2005 energy position act which you, congressman issa and other members of this committee voted on essentially was part of a national framework. fourth, there is a reality that this is an issue which requires looking back not just at one administration but it's multiple administrations. the mms was formed in 1981 and you think about the fact there have been republican and democratic administrations that essentially have allowed this organization to continue by fear

of secretary loiter. it was as early as last year i proposed to the natural resources committee, sent congressman real's committee that we move forward with organic -- because admissions to this agency are so important. let me -- so let me just say it's a shared responsibility and we need to move forward and fix the problems. i believe that we started in my tenure as secretary of interior moving forward implementing the reform agenda uncovered through much of the work of this committee on ethics from day one we put together a strong and robust ethics program working with the findings of the inspector general and moving forward to clean up the corruption that occurred in lakewood and other places. people have been fired. people have been been brought up on criminal prosecution and suspended and did everything we can to clean house. we eliminated the royalty in kind program which existed for a

long time and moved forward with a comprehensive review and change with respect to the outer continental shelf plan that had been proposed by the prior administration and finally we have worked very hard to stand up the renewable energy resources out in the oceans of america. with respect to what has happened since april 20th and how we moved forward with that reform agenda it's a continuing effort. we've proposed and developed a report on safety to the president of the united states with a 30-day report that laid out a number of different majors from blow-out prevention mechanisms to moving with cementing and casing and the like. we have proposed in the last two years budgets efforts to expand the number of inspectors that we have at mms and we're moving forward with the reorganization of mms now into the bureau of ocean energy enforcement and regulation and that is being

done under the leadership of michael bromwich and wilma louis. both have incredible credentials as prosecutors, as well as inspector generals and they were chosen by me to run the agency in large part because of the ethical improprieties which this committee and which the inspector general had uncovered and so we have been working hard on making sure that those ethical lapses are not there and understand there's still significant reform we have to undertake in the days and months ahead and we will be focused on it and likely look forward to working with you, chairman, kkman issa and members of this committee to make sure the new organization ultimately gets it right. let me finally -- i know some of you will have questions on the moratorium. i will be delighted to answer those questions and finally just in terms of what i hope the legacy of this crisis is, i would hope that as we learned lessons from this crisis that at the end of the day we'll look back at this time and we'll say

that we have together as a nation developed safer oil and gas production in the outer continental shelf that does, in fact, protect the environment and protect the safety of the workers. i would hope that we can move forward as a nation and say that we have restored the gulf coast to a place that is in a better condition than it was before april 20th and i would hope that we are able to move forward and embrace the new energy future of america with a much broader portfolio that includes solar and wind and geothermal and all the rest of the portfolio part of the renewable energy initiative of president obama and members of this congress. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, secretary, for your statement. mr. bromwich? >> thank you very much. chairman town, ranking member issa and other distinguished members of the committee it's a pleasure to be here and to testify before you and to answer any questions you may have. as the chairman noted and as the secretary noted i'm new on this job. i've been on the job exactly a month yesterday.

as head of the newly renamed bureau of ocean energy management and enforcement. the change of name was made by secretary salazar with a point, which was to stress and emphasize the regulation and enforcement part of the organization's mission that many people have fairly suggested has been ignored or neglected in the past. let me focus very briefly on three things that we've been doing since i got there. number one, on the second day after i was named director with secretary salazar's approval, we created an investigations and review unit within the organization that will have several primary functions, but the principal function will be some self-policing. it will be authorized in conjunction and cooperation and communication with the office of the inspector general to do investigations into ethical lapses into misconduct and so

forth. to my surprise there has -- there had been not been that capability within the organization previously. i believe that any healthy and robust organization should have that capability. this organization now has that. second, that unit, the investigations and review unit, will spearhead in a heightened enforcement program that will be focused on oil and gas companies and that will launch aggressive investigations in those cases in which there are allegations that the rules have been violated. too often in the past i've heard and i fear enforcement has not been vigilant. it has not been aggressive. that will change. finally, as the ranking member and the chairman noted there have been many, many reviews and investigations by various entities including the office of the inspector general, gao and so forth. one of the duties of this investigations and review unit will be to follow up on those reviews to see whether the remedial steps that should have

been taken and where statements may have been made that those remedial steps had been taken, whether they, in fact, have been taken. so that kind of follow-up work will be a central mission of the investigations and review unit. next subject i'd like to touch on briefly are the new regulations that have already been implemented and that will be implemented in the future. following the deepwater horizon blow-out and the 30-day safety report that the secretary mentioned, a, a new safety regulation ntl-5 is issued binding on the issue and followed by ntl-6 a more environme environmentally oriented regulation. these are tough, new rules and regulations that govern oil and gas companies as they do work in the outer continental shelf and i think they are fair and appropriate new rules and regulations. there are other rule makings that are in process that are in part the product of learning that has gone on in the interior

department, both previously and that is going on in an accelerated way over the last two months and we hope to be putting out those rules in the near future. again, i think we feel that those are necessary and appropriate. finally, the secretary mentioned briefly the moratorium. one of the charges he gave me in connection with the moratorium issued on july 12th was to conduct a series of public forums around the country to gather information on three central issues. drilling safety, spill containment and spill response. with an eye to gathering as much information from industry, from academia, from stakeholders and ngos and environmental groups to determine whether there are ways in which the moratorium might be shortened before the november 30th current expiration date but generally to learn as much as we can on what additional measures need to be taken on those three dimensions to ensure that when deep water drill something

resumed it's done in a safe and appropriate manner. we will begin those meetings starting august 4th in new orleans. we will follow those with a series of meetings in mobile, alabama, pensacola, florida, santa barbara, california, anchorage, alaska, biloxi, mississippi, houston, texas, and lafayette, louisiana. those will be conducted between august 4th and september 15th with them to report back to secretary salazar with the results of those forums no later than october 31st. it's a lot of work but a lot of important work and we look forward to doing it and i look forward to working with you. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you for your statement. let me begin by secretary salazar. will you commit today that the reorganization process will be transparent and this committee will be provided with all the critical details?

>> yes, we will absolutely be working with the committee, with members of congress relative to legislation on the reorganization as well as the keeping you up to date on the implementation of the new organization. >> now, the reorganization, i want to know how will the reorganization help to prevent further future disasters. >> well, first in terms of dealing with some of the ethical lapses which i agree have been abhorrent in the past and which this committee appropriated pointed out as well as our inspector general in the department of the interior, we are dividing up the agency into different units, so the revenue functions of the former -- what were formerly in the mms will move over into an office of natural resources revenue, so the dollar collectors will be separated from those who are in charge of granting the leases and doing the enforcement. the rest of the agency, which director bromwich will oversee

will be split into a bureau that essentially manages the resource out in the outer continental shelf both conventional as well as renewable and another unit that essentially will be in charge of safety and enforcement so that's the essential concepts around the reorganization to ensure first of all that conflicts of interest are avoided in the future, the kinds that you have pointed out in your investigations and, second of all, that there is a kind of enforcement with respect to safety and environmental requirements. >> you know, the gao and, of course, ig have made numerous recommendations to improve royalty collection. have you implemented any of these recommendations or -- up to this point? >> mr. chairman, the answer to that is we have in major ways relative to the elimination of

the royalty in kind program. we were also looking at other ways in which we can provide a more effective calculation of royalties and have been working at putting together a program so that the american taxpayer receives the return from the royalties or from oil and gas production that the american taxpayer deserve. >> let me ask you, have you looked at the turnover process in terms of people that work for mms, you know, moving on based on the fact that they're so poorly paid? >> we -- the revolving door issue is one that has troubled us and one that we are working on, you know, it is my personal view if you have been an mms director you ought to not go out and work with the industry, but i will have michael bromwich, if i may, mr. chairman, just quickly answer that question because it's something that we have focused on. >> i think it's a serious issue and serious problem.

there have been historical problems in recruiting qualified inspectors, and many of the qualified inspectors do come from industry, and then seem to want to go back to industry. now, it's my view that we can do a couple of things about that. one is to create tighter rules to ensure that if people who are agency government inspectors do go back into the private sector, that at least they don't deal directly with the agency that they just left on any of the matters that they worked on and for some period of time, perhaps not deal with the agency at all. so that's one set of issues that we're in the process of addressing. i think a more fundamental issue, though, is how do you enlarge the pool of qualified inspectors? one of the things that i've begun you enlarge the pool of qualified inspectors? one of the things that i've begun conversations about is is talking to some of the schools of engineering around the country to see if we can develop

recruiting programs so that this becomes a desirable public service career path. let's recruit the best and the brightest out of some of the petroleum engineering schools around the country. people who have no prior ties with industry and let's make it a sustainable career path so that they're not tempted by more dollars in the private sector, but they can make a decent living serving as a qualified inspector. so i had a conversation yesterday with the dean of the school of engineering at uc berkeley and they said there are a number of engineering deans around the country who are interested in working with us on precisely this point. so we're in the beginning stages of this, but i am hopeful that we will have robust alternatives to the back and forth revolving door system that has existed up until now. >> that's very encouraging, and i yield five minutes to the ranking member, congressman

issa. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to do technical house work. mr. secretary, your staff up until last night told us that there was a policy which they would not provide in writing that you only deliver document request to the majority and the majority has been kindly making copies and giving them to us. however, under ranking member waxman and the bush administration we never saw such a policy and we were not able to get it in writing. would you pledge that both the rest of the discovery would be coming which you said before the committee hearing started, but also that the discovery one transparent to both sides. that the chairman might have requested it slightly different than we have, but what we request would be granted to both sides at the same time rather than relying on someone to go through and try to make an effective copy rather than you knowing that you delivered both sides the same information. >> congressman issa, we delivered thousands of pages of

documents both to the chairman as well as to you and we're working with you to try to get all of the additional documents. >> and i appreciate your participation and your promising that. it was actually more technical than that. until last night any documents we got we got because they were delivered to the majority and not to the minority and the minority made copies and that's not a normal practice from government. each of us has number request and usually they're shared by delivering them either to the person who requested them if only one requested, but in most cases administration delivers to both sides so that both sides know exactly what is is being delivered. this was troubling when particularly last night your votes suddenly changed probably because you were going to be here and wanted to get more copes and got it independently and copied to the other. congressman issa, we will follow

the processes that the department of justice and others have required of the executive branch of government. my view is is that transparency is important. we have provided tremendous documents to this committee and will continue to work with you to provide you the information that you need so that you have absolute information relative to what it is that you're seeking. >> i won't belabor the point. i trust that if you gave it directly last night you will continue to give it us to directly and not the way your staff decided to do it prior to that time. the -- the questions i have are a number, and i'll try to be brief. . the culture at mms, we can talk about changing, mr. bromwich, i'm looking forward to helping change that. in our earlier investigations, one of the things we discovered that not only was this organization cozy.

it was inept. now maybe what you owe and what you owe, mr. secretary, the portion that was collecting the money completely relied on the energy companies to deliver how much was owed from where. that there was no independent accounting and that no audit ever basically found a different number meaning if kerr-mcgee when they were still in business said we got x amount out and delivered x amount of dollars, they just took the money and recorded it, that they had no independent ability to know that was the right number or not. do you, one or both of you have plans to implement a system so you can independently discover how much oil or natural gas or other resources are being taken out and verify them. not just take the word of the good players and the bad players alike? >> the answer to that, congressman issa is yes. we have done it with bp.

y we sent them a notice for $5 million with regard to payments on an onshore activity and secondly, with respect to the office of natural resource revenue which we have created, there will be the auditing function so that we can do that independenter have if er have v. >> i agree with you. that's an unacceptable system. the secretary has said that's been changed and you cannot rely on a regulated entity to report without checking that, auditing it and coming up with an independent assessment. >> i appreciate that. very quickly. a i might suggest that every year the corps of engineer have a number retiring and i would hope that you look at both ends of the spectrum and those coming directly out of universities that have never worked with oil companies and perhaps senior engineers who have 5, 10 or 15

good years to give that also are not tainted by an ambition to work for seven figures for an oil company. >> think that's a great idea. last week we found out there was a pool of people on the coast guard called warrant officers that have useful experience that we can count on. so i think there are pockets of experienced personnel all over government that people just haven't thought of tapping into in the past, but that they'll try to tap into now. >> thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired and now yield to the gentleman from ohio. congressman kucinich. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i indicated in my opening remarks that i had some questions about the way that the minerals management service handled the british petroleum atlantis platform issues in the gulf of mexico. i was one of 19 members of congress who signed a letter to the mineral management service

back in february 2010. this was about -- mr. bromwich, this was two months before the deepwater horizon incident. miss birnbaum, the former director, received a letter with bp atlantis' platform. we requested an investigation to verify a whistle-blower claim that 90% of the final construction plans of the platform, almost 7,000 plans were never approved. so if there's an accident in that rig there would be no plans for response teams to use to try to deal with it though i am happy to see that an investigation is under way, i am concerned that it is not expected to conclude until september.

it's important to keep in mind that this platform is in waters deeper than the deepwater horizon platform and bp's own worst-case scenario for a catastrophe with atlantis would put over 200,000 barrels of oil per day into the gulf which is about anywhere from four to ten times the size of the deepwater horizon catastrophe. my first question, mr. bromwich, is whether bp would be found in violation of the law if it does not maintain certified as-built drawings on file? >> i don't know the answer to that. let me get back to you on that. my intuition is that the -- >> i'm disappointed you don't have the answer to that because that's your job. the answer -- i'll give you the answer. the answer would be yes. i am told it should not take that long to review the plans.

that raises the question that the plans might not even exist. i'm concerned that atlantis is the rule and not the exception. given what we know about the horizon accident and how bp atlantis does not have engineer-certified documents for its subsea components as required by law, wouldn't it make sense for the bureau, for ocean energy management, regulation and enforcement to close the atlantis project as well as any deepwater drilling production operations in the gulf that lack final plans until an independent third party is proving that they are operating with complete sets of engineer-approved drawings for the above and below-sea component, mr. bromwich some congressman, you are correct that there is an investigation ongoing. you are also correct that it will be completed by the end of september. i am advised that there is a

letter on its way to me that will update you and other interested members of the committee with what i anticipate will be preliminary results of that investigation. the truth is i have spent the bulk of the month since i came onboard dealing with various offshoots of the deepwater horizon matter. so i am not as fully aware of the atlantis matter as you would like it to be, but i will make it my business to become more knowledgeable about it and be happy to talk to you about it further in the near future. >> mr. bromwich, i appreciate that response, but it would be useful to you to review the letter sent back in february, february 20th, 2010, signed by 19 members of congress including myself which provides a very powerful warning about the consequences of not having an appropriate inspection of the issue relating to engineering plans at that bp atlantis platform. >> i will review that.

>> you understand the concern. you are dealing with a catastrophe from the lack of appropriate oversight at deepwater horizon. what i'm maintaining to you and what other members of congress have all joined together in asserting is that lack of appropriate oversight also exists with respect to a bp atlantis platform which could have even more catastrophic implications than the deepwater horizon disaster. i thank the gentleman. i yield back. >> if i may, mr. chairman, congressman kucinich. i may want to supplement with what director bromwich said by saying the investigation is under way and he will keep you posted as to the results of the investigation. number two, we have sent inspectors out into the gulf to look at the drilling as well as the production platforms and so there is an ongoing inspection effort under way and number three, one of the things that

should come out of the lessons learned here is you cannot have 60 inspectors having the responsibility of conducting the massive job that has been assigned to these inspectors and that is why there is a budget amendment in front of the congress to beef up the level of inspection and investigation capability within the agency. >> mr. chairman, i just want this committee to be on notice that we've got to find out whether bp has certified as-built drawings on file. this is a serious matter especially in light of deepwater horizon. thank you. >> gentleman's time has expired. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from florida, congressman mica. >> we appreciate you being here, mr. secretary. i raise some questions in my couple of minutes of the opening statement. i think everyone has to be baffled by the administration's development of policy. you were one of the first people nominated, i think back by the

president. people were pleased. we had someone from the congress and your experience from the position. so you came in in 2009. you had an opportunity to develop budget and policy, i would imagine, and i was kind of shocked again when the staff gave me the budget and it showed cuts like $2 million in the mineral management environmental permit activity that was proposed by your agency. did you participate in making decisions on that or again, the primary agency for response in these kinds of disasters would be the coast guard. the administration proposed 1100 positions cut -- cutting assets, ships, planes, helicopters, all of the things that you would use in a response. were you part of the decision to make those cuts either in your agency? maybe not coast guard? >> congressman mica, with respect to the budget that has

been submitted to mms. if you look at the ten-year history of the budget. there had been erosion within the department of interior mms as well as with all -- >> with -- >> let me just finish, with respect to the other agencies in the interior including mms, a very significant erosion after we came onboard. you will note that the inspectors that are set forth in the budget for mms are a significant increase from what had been there in the past. the question that was appropriate for this committee and for the congress is that number sufficient and in our view it is not. we have to have additional capacity. all i can go by the budget asked is is if you were there when the decision was made to cut the environmental review activities which also reviewed permits and then the next thing is this is february, it came out. in march did you participate in the decision to expand drilling in the gulf and other areas?

>> the -- >> were you consulted? is there any documentation? >> not that i was consulted. it was my decision, and it was my plan and it's a plan that i am very -- that is a very well-thought-out plan relative to moving forward in a thoughtful way that changes the direction that we were going on in the oc is that does different things with respect to what was being planned on the atlantic and the -- and the different things that was being planned in alaska and brings in the kind of environmental reviews that are necessary. >> again, let's go to that. you were there when they issued this one-page permit and this is the permit to drill for bp, one-page. this is backed up by a 500-page cleanup spill plan. i'm sure you didn't review this, but you told me that people who are responsible in all were fired and people changed.

have we got that organization chart? the guy that was responsible for signing this. we've got two people here and tolbert signed it for saucier. he's still there. he's got that circle there, that yellow thing. so he wasn't fired. he gave carte blanche. this is the approval for bp to drill and the conditions by which they drill and it referred to a 500-page document. that 500-page document i've -- my staff tells me it has bill provisions for seals and walruses and polar bears. none of which i have in the gulf. it looks like this is all sort of carte blanche approval. is that what it appears to be? and is this guy going to get fired or anyone -- and this guy is still making the decisions.

this is saucier and here making the decision on implementing the moratorium. >> congressman mica, let me respond with two points. first, while it is true that people committed both criminal and ethical conduct that is -- wrong -- >> and he is responsible -- >> let me finish, congressman mica. the reality of it is that there are very -- there are many good people within the agency. there are some bad people and those are being dealt with. with respect to the document that you're referring to and with respect to people that were involved concerning the approvals of the ma conneda wells, i have asked the inspector general to take a look at that and they have taken our own independent review which we'll be happy to share with members of this committee. >> i appreciate a list and the status of those held responsible.

thank you. maybe we can submit that to the committee. >> without objection. >> now i yield five minutes to the gentle lady from california, miss beard. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the secretary and mr. bromwich. a series of questions. from the outside there is an ethical crisis at mms, whether you change the name or not, there has been a history of drugs, sex, rock 'n' roll concerts and i am concerned based on the post article today that says there is a much higher degree of revolving door that exists in the oil industry than anywhere else in that three out of every four lobbyists had some relationship to the government. we know there are 12 former employees of mm is that are now lobbying for the oil industry. mr. bromwich and secretary, i would like to know what you're

going to do now to freeze out those 12 former employees from interacting with mms? >> well, we will certainly make sure that they observe the current ethical rules that exist, that restrict their contracts to some extent, but one of the things i have to do is to gather information from people who have the information, if they happen to be former employees of the agency. i'm not going to exclude them for that reason, but i'm certainly not going to give their information any more weight than anyone else's. i agree. i read the same article you did and i'm troubled by it. i think what i can tell you and tell the committee is that you'll never see me in that position. i'll say right now that i'll self-impose a lifetime ban on contacts with the agency, and i hope that sets an example for other people in the agency and other people throughout government. i agree it is unseemly.

>> i guess from our perspective, can you take action independent of congress passing a bill to restrict former employees from having access to the agency? >> well, let me give you an example. i've actually met with two of the former directors who are now part of trade associations within the last couple of weeks. >> that was at your request. >> no. it was at their request, but i am in the business right now of trying to gather information from a variety of sources, including from trade associations because they have relevant information to provide bearing on some of the issues that the secretary and i are working on. i'm going to give them a hearing, but i'm also going to give all other groups including environmental groups, including -- >> i understand that. i have a limited amount of time. >> okay. >> my question was can you act independent of congress in creating some restrictions around access to the agency after employees have left? >> yes, we can, but we need to do it in a thoughtful way. >> so you report back once you

decided what you will do with the committee? >> sure. >> the gao report to this commit i indicated that the revenue share the government collects for oil and gas produced in the gulf ranks 93rd out of 104 revenue collection regimes around the world. i think most of us find that stunning and shocking. what are you going to do to change that so that the royalties being received from the gulf are reflective of the world as a whole. at least the international average of royalties received around the world? >> congresswoman spear, let me just say that the royalty issue in getting a fair return to the american taxpayer is foremost in our minds. we have been working on it it. we have been working on it and

we have ways to change how to make the american tax payer is getting a fair return on royalties, not only on the offshore, but also on the offshore when you have a circumstance that is worse when you have the same royalty rate that existed since the 1920 mineral leasing act at 12.5%. so we are making the kinds of changes that will bring in the right level of royalties and at the same time make sure that there is accountability with respect to the auditing functions relating to that. >> and when will those be put into place and do you need congressional action to do that in. >> we are working on it. we are moving forward with it. it is being put into place as we speak. the royalty was part of that effort. >> that's good news to hear. one last question. my understanding along with congressman mica's reference is that this particular 600-page document was reviewed by two people for a total of ten hours.

so by anyone's measurement it was inadequate. i don't care if you're a speed reader, there is is no way that in ten hours you can give the kind of attention to that document. what are you doing moving forward to make sure the employees doing that kind of review are both qualified and have adequate amount of time to do the review? >> with the reorganization that we have put on the table and the resources that we have asked from congress to be able to do the right kind of work in ensuring safety and ensuring environmental protection should address those issues. >> the gentle lady's time is expired. i yield to the gentleman turner. >> thank you. mr. secretary, i have a few items on a timeline that lead up to the explosion in the oilfield

and the oil leak. i would like to go over some of those items and get your responses. we focused a lot on what happened after the explosion and i would like to focus on the period leading up to it. i would like the timeline included in the record. the timeline begins with january 29, 2009, and the secretary being declared and the secretary is appointed on that date and declares himself the new sheriff in town. this is january 2009. in february 2009 in a site-specific exploration plan filed by bp, it states that it was, quote, unquote, not required to file a scenario for a potential blowout of the deepwater well. march in 2009 as we have a new sheriff in town, a whistle-blower brought forth an issue of a safety breach by bp in the gulf of mexico to the attention of mms. quote, the whistle-blower who was hired to oversee the company's databases that house documents related to its atlantis project discovered the drilling platform had been operated without the majority of

the engineer-approved documents that needed to run safely. no action was taken by the agency, but the most important thing was two months after the whistle-blower came forward in may 2009, mms fails to perform a standard monthly inspection of the deepwater horizon. what happened in the secretary's office in may 2009, our interior secretary is speaking at the wind energy conference in chicago. june 2009 mms proposes new rules to require oil and gas operators to require and implement safety and environmental systems for offshore drilling. the rule is still not finalized one month and one year later. in june of that same month these rules were provided, but not finalized. secretary salazar hires silvia baca away from bp america to become his deputy assistant secretary of land and materials management according to this timeline. summer 2009, the mms awards

transocean's u.s. gulf of mexico operation a safety award for excellence and our secretary directed mms to begin focusing on promoting wind energy. elizabeth birnbaum assumes duties as director of mms. the new york times recorded that quote nr particularly and tasked with handling the issue of the 25-mile cape wind farm off of cape cod. what happens the next month august 2009, mms fails to perform a standard monthly expansion of deepwater horizon. august of that same month, white house -- at the white house's request, secretary salazar takes a break from her wind energy efforts to begin the big effort of selling health care reform. august 2009, you traveled throughout the west to tout obama's stimulus plan. i understand from this timeline that on the 21st of august that you were in grand canyon south rim on the highlighting 10.8 million stimulus dollars.

8/20, you were in utah. $3.6 million stimulus dollars and on the 20th you were in oregon on stimulus dollars. the very next month the national oceanic atmospheric administration sent mms a letter about the offshore drilling proposal saying mms understated environmental impacts of the new drilling proposal. september 8th of that month, salazar says during an interview at reuters says root now we are focused on health care reform. in fact, krshs reports in november 2009 that anticipating a struggle the white house deputized ken salazar and former senate majority leader tom daschle to join vice president joe biden in trying to clear the way for healthcare bills overhaul of the next few weeks, but mms is is busy. mms has a renewable energy task force meeting in rhode island, massachusetts, and new jersey and with all of this activity happening in november, what

happens in the gulf in december? december 2009, mms fails to perform the standard monthly inspection of deepwater horizon? they again failed to perform the inspection in january and then through a series of notifications that bp provides to the agency, the specifications from deepwater are continued to be adjusted. mms responding in seven minutes to one request for modification, 4.5 minutes to another after having routinely not shown up for standard inspections and in april, the deepwater horizon rig explodes and then sinks, and i believe the secretary is there by april 30th after attending on april 27th, participating in a ceremony on wind turbines. april 28th, announcing the approval of the cape wind

project and then your attending in the gulf to take a look at what has occurred. >> the gentleman's time. >> a significant amount inactivity. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i believe my staff has a copy of the timeline which i can also provide to you. >> mr. chairman respond even though the gentleman's time has expired. the fact is the united states department of the interior has a major mission to protect and preserve the natural resources of america both onshore as well as offshore as well as being the custodian of america's mission and on that mission we work on the set of issues relating to native americans and although the other assignments that we have within the department of the interior. specifically with respect to many of the things that you cite in there, i have spent probably more time on the comprehensive energy program for the nation that the president and i have

been championing than on almost any other issue, but i can tell you within the comprehensive energy plan, we are confident that we will see and fold for this nation that we will have a broad energy portfolio that will include oil and gas and at the same time include the new energy frontier of solar, wind and geothermal that we have worked on very hard. i will say this to you, mr. turner, that without equivocation, we have spent a huge amount of time with respect to all of the issues relating to mms and they have included changing the ethics culture moving forward with a new direction on the shelf from what was left over from the prior administration and moving forward to standing up, a renewable energy program. so we work hard. we cover a lot of ground and we have a lot of ground to cover in the future. >> thank you very much, the gentleman's time has expired, and i now yield five minutes to

the gentleman from california, miss chu. >> thank you, mr. chair. we know that the blowout preventers failed with bp with enormously tragic consequences. it's my understanding that an inspector does not actually have to witness in person the blowout preventer test, but can simply review paperwork from the oil company operators and they can basically take their word for it. we know that these tests can be successfully faked as illustrated by several cases. this practice is just unimaginable and cuts corners and compromises the oversight of the validity of the test. so how -- how was the reorganization of mms work to improve these inspection practices and what specific improvements do you anticipate making to make the bop test effective and what are your

thoughts about having these types of tests certified by independent third party inspectors selected by federal regulators and not the oil companies? >> congresswoman chu, it is a very good question and something which we have been working on that relates to two parts, the reforms within the ocs and the first of those is having the right standards in place and many of those standards were set forth in the 30-day report which president obama directed they deliver to him. many of those standards are being implemented with respect to the notice that director bromwich spoke about a little bit earlier and then finally with respect to the enforcement of those standards there needs to be a significantly beefed up effort with respect to the agency's inspection capabilities because right now it is a fool's errand to think that 60 inspectors can essentially come out and inspect all of the different ocs facilities

including production facilities that are out there. >> so you will be coming forthwith new regulations pertaining to this particular practice? >> yes. >> well, then it leads to another question which is about new regulations and one of the problems with the current regulatory system is that it takes a long time for any improvements and in fact, it took nine years for regulations related to pipeline safety toe work its way through the process and take effect. so how will the reorganization of mms work to resolve this issue of delayed implementation of new and necessary regulations? the reorganization itself, there will be two parts essentially dealing with the shelf beyond the revenue site and one of them will be to provide the safety and enforcement and we will make sure that we are moving forward

to address all of the issues and all of the lessons to be learned from this tragedy. >> but my question is how long will it take and what will you do to make sure that it's accelerated? >> congresswoman chu, i think some people might say that we should have waited for another six months, eight months until we found out exactly all of the results of all of the investigations. our view from day one has been that we would work on the issue as fast as we can and so the 30-day report that was delivered to the president is the report that has many rules and requirements and standards which are already being implemented and some of them notice the less sees and some of them through rule making that will be conducted by director bromwich. >> finally, let me ask this. under the two interior department regulations, oil companies use models developed by mms to predict the oil

reaching the shore following a spill. in the deepwater horizon case, these models incorrectly predicted that there was a 0% likelihood of oil reaching both shores in florida, alabama and louisiana. it suggests, of course, that these models are outdated and that the regulations relating to the oil response plans need to be revisited. so my question is does mms need to re-examine all of these oil spill response plans particularly with regard to these kinds of predictions which are clearly incorrect and way off and how will the mms reorganization help this process? >> the answer is yes on drilling safety and containment measures and oil spill responsibilities and i would like director bromwich to comment on that as well. >> you are quite right, congresswoman, that the oil spill response plans are plainly inadequate and that is one

subject on which i will be gathering information on the public forums that we will be holding over the next month and a half with an eye toward not only insisting on the short term for regulations that those oil spill response plans be substantially revised if they're going to pass muster, but also with an eye toward getting out new regulations in the future and we'll make sure that that's the standard from now on. and you're reviewing all of the plans? >> yes. >> gentlewoman's time has expired, and i yield to the gentleman from tennessee and let me also wish him happy birthday. >> well, i have the honor of sharing a birthday yesterday with the chairman and he sent me a note saying that he thinks we should make it a national holiday. >> that was a very nice note. mr. secretary, thank you for coming here. i've sat through hearings in the transportation committee and the resources committee on the bp

oil spill and in both of those hearings the witnesses have mentioned that over 40,000 wells have been drilled in the gulf since 1960 and my staff got information from your department earlier today saying since 1947 more than 50,000 wells have been drilled in the gulf of mexico and it's -- would you not agree it's an -- it's almost an astonishingly safe, clean history that we have there in the gulf? i mean, there have been almost no -- there's been anything even close to this bp spill. in fact, i'm told there are more spills out of ships than there are from these rigs. >> congressman duncan, i agree with you. in fact, i think it was that history of safety over all of those times, 50,000 wells which essentially was the imperical

foundation upon which the national framework has been built with respect to the oil and gas production in the outer continental shelf. >> i am told there are now 3600 structures in the gulf right now. governor engler wrote a column for "the washington times" a few weeks ago and says drilling moratorium is a jobs moratorium. he said the moratorium immediately shut down 33 deepwater rigs in the gulf including 22 near louisiana. this action could cost 3,000 to 6,000 louisiana jobs in the next two to three weeks and potentially 20,000 by the end of next year. for every one employee on an oil rig, there are nine employees onshore supporting that one employee. that's -- that's my main concern because not only did i read this by governor engler, but

repeatedly, i've seen on the news reports that these oil workers in the gulf area are almost in a panic situation about all of the thousands of jobs that are being destroyed and are to be destroyed. >> congressman duncan, let me just say that we, too, are concerned and we are aware of the issues of our view and my view in issuing the moratorium that it was the right way to move forward to put the pause button in place until we can answer three fundamental questions. drilling safety and blowout containment capability as well as oil spill response capability. if we were to have another one in the gulf of mexico today or next week, we could not have the oil spill response capability to deal with those blowouts. the effort which exxon, shell and chevron and conoco phillips came up with yesterday is the beginning point of that conversation relative to how we address one of those three

fundamental issues and director bromwich's set of meetings will help us answer those three fundamental questions so we can determine how to move forward with respect to the pause button in place. >> on another point, the columnist and commentator whoi think almost everybody agrees even if they don't agree with him, they think he's one of the smartest men in this city. he wrote recently, environmental chic has driven us out there. he asked why we were drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place. en inchmental chic has driven us out there, they have rendered the pacific and nearly all of the atlantic coast off limits to oil production and of course, in the safest of all places on land, we've had a 30-year ban in the arctic wild life refuge. i've seen articles that say something like 83% or 84% of the continental shelf is off limits to oil production and that -- that also is a concern of mine

and then finally, before my time runs out i'll say to mr. bromwich, i'm concerned we've changed the name and there seems to be a goal of emphasizing enforcement, and i'm just wondering, are we going have a gotcha-type agency now? because most of these companies, let's forget about bp. let's consider them a bad actor, but most of these companies are doing a good job and complying with all the laws. >> i agree with you. we're not going have a gotcha culture, but we're going to have clear rules and we're going to have aggressive inspections and violations of those clear rules will be dealt with severely. i think that's the right kind of regulatory regime to have. >> if you find a violation are you going to give the company a chance to correct it or are you immediately going to come down on them and shut them down? >> that's a fact-specific determination and we'll have to

take it on a case-by-case basis. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i recognize the gentleman from maryland, congressman cummings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. secretary salazar. one of the things that we are -- that we had with the coast guard sub commitet and transportation committee and one of the things that we were concerned about is the -- what role do you all see the coast guard playing in the future? you know, the legislation passed by the committee on transportation infrastructure will require much more significant role for the coast guard and the approval of the oil spill response plans which is crucial given that the coast guard is responsible for managing the response to the spills. so what steps, if any, mms and the coast guard taking now to strengthen the role of the coast guard and by the way, that's been one of their complaints

that they're asked to be responsible for overseeing the cleanup, but they don't have enough say in creating the plan. did you know that? they've actually testified to that. either one of you. >> congressman cummings, if i may, the role that we have seen play out with respect to the response with the deepwater horizon blowout and the bp oil spill has been one that we have been working with hand in hand with admiral allen as the national incident commander and it's been continuous. we will look back at the deepwater horizon tragedy and look at the lessons learned including the capacity that are out there with respect to the coast guard and others, but the fact of the matter is the relationship in terms of the structure has been set up to respond to the oil spill response has worked well between

interior and the coast guard and other agencies that are also involved. i've got to tell you again, we've had testimony within the last three weeks and i will get you that information where they have told us that they want -- and this is not admiral allen. they want more say in the development of the response, the emergency response plan because they just feel like, by the time, if you're going to call on them to oversee the cleanup, they should be more involved than in the beginning. i'll get that to you. you might want to take a look at that. i'm surprised you didn't know that. >> let me say this, congressman cummings. the fact that the oil spill response issue is is one of the three most central issues that we're looking at and that issue will necessarily involve -- should involve and will involve,

i will make sure it happens, a close collaboration with the coast guard because we're not going to move forward until we have an assuredness with respect to the adequacy of oil spill response plans. mr. secretary, although the deep-water horizon was registered in the republic of the marshall islands, has testified before the joint mms coast guard panel saying that the rmi as a flag state did not inspect the drilling equipment & on the deep water. he indicated that such inspection are left up to the mms and we understand that mms often relies on key tests and that mms inspectors only review the paperwork associated with the text. how is it that adequate -- how can we make sure that we have

adequate -- that is, approval of these -- of these reports? because there's a question of inspection that some of the inspections are not actually done by our people, but they're done by the marshall allen folk and people they contract so how can we guarantee that those inspections which are so important are properly done? >> let me say first there were inspecs conducted of the deepwater horizon including inspections in april and testing including of the blowout preventer that occurred in the days leading up to the explosion. secondly, we will have a significantly more robust inspection regime and it's part of what director bromwich will be working on and he may want to comment on that. >> that's absolutely right. those are one of the things we'll be focusing on most intently. the important inspecinspections

to be done by human beings and human beings with experience and demonstrated competence and an arm's length relationship at least to the entities that own the facilities. >> i see my time is up. thank you very much. >> the secretary has got leave at 12, and i'm going to try to get in as many members as we can before they have to leave before they go to vote. mr. burton, five minutes. >> you know, 50,000 wells have been drilled in the gulf without a problem, and yet the president put a moratorium on the drilling, and as a result you've had some of the rigs go to egypt, to the congo. in canada they're talking about new wells digging up to 6,000 feet and we'll lose the wells

and they'll probably not come back for a long, long time. it makes no sense to me to cut off the drilling in the gulf when you've not had any real problems except for this one catastrophe, and i just don't understand why the administration has taken this carte blanche approach. can you explain that? >> congressman burton, having been involved in this matter in response to the deepwater horizon blowout every single day since the blowout, i can tell you that there are three fundamental questions that have to be answered before we take our hand off the pause button and those are the issues of drilling safety and oil well blowout containment as well as oil spill response capacities that's what we are working on with director bromwich as well with a whole host of other efforts. >> you've already stated that there's more of a chance from a

leak of a tanker than there is from one of these rigs. it just doesn't make any sense with a 50,000 drilling of wells in the gulf and you have one spill that you will cut off everything and the rigs are already moving to brazzaville and the congo and we sent them to drill in deepwater areas. so what we're doing, in effect, is shoving oil production away from the united states and we're costing us jobs when there is really no reason for it except for this one exception and what you're talking about, in my opinion, it doesn't make a great deal of sense. i want to ask you a couple of other questions really quick. i have a video i would like to show you really quick. it's about 15 seconds long. so can you cue up that video? >> salazar and nap alton aeapoa been on the islands three times. >> it's a photo-op?

>> i don't know. >> do you have contact on the stock level? every time napolitano and salazar has come on to grand isle they go on a boat or helicopter and something like that. they've never met with local homeland security. i don't think they've met with anyone in town. she drove past me last time and i was standing at the airport waiting for you to come in and she drove right past me. >> well, this is dino bonano who is the homeland security director down there and the fire chief mark scardino. they said you've never been down to that parish and that's one of the most toxic areas that's been hit since the spill took place. why haven't you been down there? >> congressman burton, first of all, we believe that the last count that i saw had 11 times that we had been in the gulf coast states --

>> this is one of the hardest hit. >> i have been through louisiana, alabama, mississippi, florida. i don't know the exact parish by parish, but let me just say since april 20th and even before that, i spent a lot of time on the gulf coast and i continue to spend a lot of time down there and will and will work relentlessly on this problem until we get it fixed and we charge the way forward -- >> it seems like this would have been one of the top priorities. i don't understand why you weren't there and they were complaining very vigorously that you had ignored their problems there. >> the president, the vice president and members of the cabinet have been down there countless times. my assistant secretary -- my assistant secretary for fish and wild life has taken 17 trips down into that area to deal with these issues. >> you're the guy. you should have been there, in my opinion. the last thing i want to ask is i know the jones act was referred to. there were a number of countries

that wanted to bring skimmers in as soon as this thing took place. we could have eliminated an awful lot of these ecological problems if those skimmers had been brought in. why in the world did we let the other countries bring in the skimmers as fast as possible. >> i disagree with you. the jones act has not kept a single vessel from coming into the country, number one. we have a shortage of skimming vessels has not been an issue and the jones act was want an issue. >> why weren't they allowed in. >> thad allen and the national incident commander had been in charge. >> the gentleman's time has expired. thank you, madam chair. my intent wasn't to rebut my republican colleagues in the hearing, but given what was just said about the exception of this disaster, it's like suggesting that 9/11 was an exception to air traffic control regulations and that we shouldn't react to that. the fact is that this has been

an environmental disaster and the fact that we should look at the regulation a preep atly of oil wells in the gulf and i think it's very appropriate that the administration take the steps that it has to make sure that all of the wells are safe. i further heard my republican colleaguing is that its lum tagdzs on onshore drilling and other parts of the country that is driving bp and others to go to the gulf upon i assume that they're making money in the gulf that the reason they have this in the gulf is because they have oil wells there and they're making money, is that correct? >> that's correct. the reason bp and other oil companies are, in fact, drilling is because they're making a profit in the gulf? >> that is correct. i would like to move on and i think the issue here is one that's important and it goes back to the 2005 energy act and the issue of categorical exclusions. i am concerned, as are others with regard to the number of

categorical exclusions that we have seen for wells in the gulf, and i would appreciate if you would help us better understand how categorical exclusions are determined and whether or not bp advocated exclusively for categorical exclusions for the drilling operations in the gulf. >> congressman, let me just say, first of all that just back on the moratorium, it was a prudent position that we have taken and i appreciate the support that you echo for the moratorium because of the fundamental issues that we do need to have addressed. secondly, with respect to the question on categorical exclusions, they appear at a time when after significant environmental analysis has been done because the process in developing a five-year plan, you do an environmental impact statement before you issue and have a lease sale there's another environmental impact statement reviewed before a sale

happens. the categorical exclusion in the gulf of mexico which has been granted to more than bp. those occur in large part because there is a 30-day window of approval required by statute when an exploration plan itself is filed as part of the leasing and development process. so we've asked the congress to extend that 30-day window to the 90-day window, and i hope that it is something that you enact in the oil spill legislation before you. >> when you say the 30-day window is in statute. when was that 30-day window implemented and why was it only 30 days and who advocated for the 30-day window? >> i do not have the specifics on when that requirement was put into the law, but i can get that for you. >> do you believe -- what is your opinion as to how long it should be for the review? you said 90 days. is 90 days appropriate. 30 days i believe is too short, and i do think what we need to

do especially in places like the gulf of mexico, you have tremendous environmental information and reviews that have been conducted and so we just need to make sure that the environmental reviews that are being conducted are worthwhile and that we're doing the right thing in terms of the aim of the environmental analysis which is to understand what impacts they'll be to the environment and the activity. >> do you believe there's been an overuse of categorical exclusions under the previous administrations and in the 30-day window is a primary cause of that? >> i do believe that there was an overuse of the categorical exclusions and indeed with respect to what we've done on the onshore under the bureau of land management is that we have changed that practice and obviously, we are now conducting a comprehensive review with the council of the quality relative with the changes that will happen. >> thank you, madam chair, i

yield back. >> mr. murphy? >> thank you very much, madam chair. i know we're about to go to votes and secretary salazar, you've been great to spend time with us. i appreciate your response to mr. burton's question. we could be for days on end if we would play single individuals that were upset that one particular federal official didn't visit them. i think we're very lucky to have you in this position. so many of us have been impressed by your immediate and robust response to this tragedy and mr. bromwich, you have a reputation as a no-nonsense administrator in everything you've done, and i think you're the right guy for the job. i just have a couple of quick questions. one relevance of funding source is moving forward. the reorganization as you split into three different entities will require more people in and of itself and three directors and three officers of congressional relations and we know that we need more people to

do the inspection work. as you look down the road at how you think the agency should be funded and you look at a potential diminishing reliance on royalty payments. how do you expect that moving forward the new functions of these agencies are going to be funded? >> congressman murphy, thank you for your comments. we are in the midst of working with the appropriators in developing the budget amendment to make sure that the funding is there to be able to do the job. and the funding sources themselves they'll be part of the discussion to engage with congress on. >> with respect to royalty payments. do you have ideas as to what components will be -- continue to be funded by royalty payments or what components you no longer want to be funded with respec